T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OB E R T S E R VI N, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. E. K. M CDAN I EL , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 16000 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 4 -C V -0 0 6 2 1 -R C JR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe rtC l i ve J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 9, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T R O T T an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ob ertS ervi n w as conv i ct ed of fi rs t -degree m urder and robb ery und er N e v a d ala w a n d s e n te n c e d to d e a th . T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f N e v a d aa f

f irm e d h is c o n v i c t i o n b u tv a c a t e d h i s d e a th s e n t e n c e , i mp o s i n g i n s t e a d tw o c o n s e c u t i v e t e rms of l i fe i m pri sonm entw i tho utthe po ss i bi l i ty of par ol e. In 20 05 , af t er 

# FI LED MA R 01 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

un succ es sf

ul l y pursui ng st at e post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef , S ervi n fi l ed an am ended pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4, cl ai m i ng thathe w as de pr i ve d a ttr i a l of

hi s r i ght s t o due pr oc e s s a nd t o the e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d h is p e titio n . S e rv in tim e ly ap p e a le d , a n d th is co u rtg ran t ed a cert i fi cat e o f ap p eal ab i l i ty. W e f ir s t a d d r e s s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f N e v a d a ’s r e

je c tio n o f

S e rv in ’s c la im tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l c ourtvi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o due pr oc e s s w he n i tde ni e d hi s m ot i on f orahe a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne the ne c e s s i ty a nd a m ountof a nt i ps y c hot i c m e di c a t i on tha tapr os e c ut i on w i tne s s , B r i a n A l l e n, w a s vol unt a r i l y t a ki ng. I n R i gg i ns v. N e v ada , 504 U . S . 127 ( 1992) , the S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s he l d tha tthe f or c e d adm i ni stra t i on of ant i psyc ho t i c drugs t o a de fe n da n t is c o n s titu tio n a lly i m pe rm i s s i bl e “ abs e ntaf i ndi ng of ove rr i di ng j us t i f

i c a t i on a nd ade t e rm i na t i on of m edi ca l approp ri at enes s. ” I d. a t135. T he C ourt , how e ve r , ha s ne ve ra ddr e s s e d the const i tut i on al i ty of the volun tary t aki ng of such m edi ca t i on by a w i tn ess . T he r e f or e , i tc annotbe s a i d tha tthe s t a t e - c ourtde c i s i on w a s “ c ontr a ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es . ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1); s e e C a r e y v . Mu s la d in , 5 4 9 U .S . 7 0 , 7 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . W e th u s c o n c lu d e th a t S e rv in is n o te n t i t l e d t o h ab e a s r e l i e f o n th i s c l a i m.3

W e n e x t a d d r e s s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f N e v a d a ’s r e

je c tio n o f

S e rv in ’s c la im th a t c o u n s e l w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to s u p p o rt a d e q u a te ly h is m ot i on f orahe a r i ng on A l l e n’ s m e di c a t i on. A c l a i m of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l i n vi ol a t i on of

the S i xth A m e ndm e ntha s tw o c om pone nt s . “ F i r s t , the de f e nda ntm us ts how tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt . . . . S e c ond, the defe nd antm ustshow thatthe defi ci entperf orm ance prej ud i ce d the defense . ” Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 68 7 (19 84 ). H er e, coun se l supp ort ed S e rvi n’ s m ot i on f

orahe a r i ng by i nf

orm i ng the s t a t e tr i a l c ourtaboutthe a n tip s y c h o tic m e d ic a tio n ’s e f f e c ts o n p a tie n ts g e n e r a lly a n do n A lle n s p e c if ic a lly . T h e S u p rem e C o u rto f N ev ad a d i d n o tu n reaso n ab l y ap p l y Str i c kland in concl ud i ng thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as no tdefi ci ent . A cc ordi ng l y, habeas r e lie f is n o t w arr a n te d o n th is c la im . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). N e x t, w e a d d r e s s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt o f N e v a d a ’s r e

je c tio n o f

S e rv in ’s c la im thatcoun se l w as const i tut i on al l y i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o sub po ena apo t ent i al w i tne s s na m e d D a m i e n W i nke l m a n t o t e s t i f y a ttr i a l . A c c or di ng t o S e rvi n, W i nk el m an w ou l d h ave c on tra di ct ed the t es t i m on y of the prosecut i on ’ s key w i tness thatS ervi n sho tand k i l l ed the vi ct i m . W i nk el m an’ s t es t i m on y, ho w ever , w as o f q u est i o n ab l e rel i ab i l i ty an d o f l i m i t ed p ro b at i v e v al u e. M o reo v er, b ecau se th e ju ry w a s in s tru c te d o n th e f e lo n y - m u r d e rru le , th e p r o s e c u tio n d id n o t h a v e to4

p ro v e th atS erv i n w as th e sh o o t er t o o b t ai n a fi rst -d eg ree m u rd er co n v i ct i o n . T h u s, e ve n i f c ouns e l ’ s pe r f

orm a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt , the S upr e m e C ourtof N e va da r e a s onabl y appl i e d Str i c kland i n c onc l udi ng tha tthe f a i l ur e t o s ubpoe na W in k e lm a n d id n o t p r e

ju d ic e th e d e f

e n s e . H ab e a s r e lie f

is n o t w a rr a n te d o n th is c la im . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1). F in ally, w e a d d re ss th e S u p re m e C o u rt o f N ev ad a’s r ejec ti o n o f S er v in ’s cl ai m thatcoun se l w as const i tut i on al l y i neff ec t i ve i n fai l i ng t o i ntrodu ce evi dence of A l l en’ s ant i psyc ho t i c m edi ca t i on t o the j ury. T hi s c l ai m w as no tencom pass ed b y th e c e rtif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility , b u t w e c o n s tru e S e rv in ’s b r ie f a s am o tio n to e x p a n d th e c e rtif

ic a te , a n d w e g r a n t th e m o tio n . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( e ) . N everthel es s, w e r ej ec tthi s c l ai m on the m er i t s. P re se nt at i on of such evi dence wo u l d h a v e , a tm o s t , d i s c r e d i t e d Al l e n ’ s t e s t i m o n y th a tS e rv i n wa s th e s h o o t e r . As di sc usse d abo ve, the prosecut i on coul d h ave obt ai ned a fi rs t -degree m urder c onvi c t i on unde rthe f

e l ony - m ur de rrul e w i thoutpr ovi ng tha tS e rvi n w a s the s hoot e r . M or e ove r , the r e i s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve tha tS e rvi n w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d a l es s s ever e s ent ence i f hi s c ou nsel had d i sc re di t ed A l l en. T hu s, the S up re m e C ou rt of N e va dar e a s onabl y appl i e d Str i c kland i n c onc l udi ng tha tthe f a i l ur e t o pr e s e nt evi dence of A l l en’ s m edi ca t i on di d n otprej ud i ce the defense , and n o h abea s r el i ef is w a rr a n te d . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d)(1).5

F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.